Search Results

Search found 4593 results on 184 pages for 'constructor injection'.

Page 52/184 | < Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >

• JavaScript inheritance extend function

  - by Zach

  I'm having some trouble understanding the IF clause at the end of this function from Pro JavaScript Design Patterns: function extend(subClass, superClass) { var F = function() {}; F.prototype = superClass.prototype; subClass.prototype = new F(); subClass.prototype.constructor = subClass; subClass.superclass = superClass.prototype; if(superClass.prototype.constructor == Object.prototype.constructor) { superClass.prototype.constructor = superClass; } } The book explains that these lines ensure that the superclass's constructor attribute is correctly set, even if the superclass is the Object class itself. Yet, if I omit those three lines and do the following: function SubClass() {}; extend(SubClass, Object); alert(Object.prototype.constructor == Object); The alert says 'true', which means the superclass's constructor is set correctly even without those last three lines. Under what conditions, then, does this IF statement do something useful? Thanks.

  Read the article

• readonly keyword

  - by nmarun

  This is something new that I learned about the readonly keyword. Have a look at the following class: 1: public class MyClass 2: { 3: public string Name { get; set; } 4: public int Age { get; set; } 5:  6: private readonly double Delta; 7:  8: public MyClass() 9: { 10: Initializer(); 11: } 12:  13: public MyClass(string name = "", int age = 0) 14: { 15: Name = name; 16: Age = age; 17: Initializer(); 18: } 19:  20: private void Initializer() 21: { 22: Delta = 0.2; 23: } 24: } I have a couple of public properties and a private readonly member. There are two constructors – one that doesn’t take any parameters and the other takes two parameters to initialize the public properties. I’m also calling the Initializer method in both constructors to initialize the readonly member. Now when I build this, the code breaks and the Error window says: “A readonly field cannot be assigned to (except in a constructor or a variable initializer)” Two things after I read this message: It’s such a negative statement. I’d prefer something like: “A readonly field can be assigned to (or initialized) only in a constructor or through a variable initializer” But in my defense, I AM assigning it in a constructor (only indirectly). All I’m doing is creating a method that does it and calling it in a constructor. Turns out, .net was not ‘frameworked’ this way. We need to have the member initialized directly in the constructor. If you have multiple constructors, you can just use the ‘this’ keyword on all except the default constructors to call the default constructor. This default constructor can then initialize your readonly members. This will ensure you’re not repeating the code in multiple places. A snippet of what I’m talking can be seen below: 1: public class Person 2: { 3: public int UniqueNumber { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public int Age { get; set; } 6: public DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; } 7: public string InvoiceNumber { get; set; } 8:  9: private readonly string Alpha; 10: private readonly int Beta; 11: private readonly double Delta; 12: private readonly double Gamma; 13:  14: public Person() 15: { 16: Alpha = "FDSA"; 17: Beta = 2; 18: Delta = 3.0; 19: Gamma = 0.0989; 20: } 21:  22: public Person(int uniqueNumber) : this() 23: { 24: UniqueNumber = uniqueNumber; 25: } 26: } See the syntax in line 22 and you’ll know what I’m talking about. So the default constructor gets called before the one in line 22. These are known as constructor initializers and they allow one constructor to call another. The other ‘myth’ I had about readonly members is that you can set it’s value only once. This was busted as well (I recall Adam and Jamie’s show). Say you’ve initialized the readonly member through a variable initializer. You can over-write this value in any of the constructors any number of times. 1: public class Person 2: { 3: public int UniqueNumber { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public int Age { get; set; } 6: public DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; } 7: public string InvoiceNumber { get; set; } 8:  9: private readonly string Alpha = "asdf"; 10: private readonly int Beta = 15; 11: private readonly double Delta = 0.077; 12: private readonly double Gamma = 1.0; 13:  14: public Person() 15: { 16: Alpha = "FDSA"; 17: Beta = 2; 18: Delta = 3.0; 19: Gamma = 0.0989; 20: } 21:  22: public Person(int uniqueNumber) : this() 23: { 24: UniqueNumber = uniqueNumber; 25: Beta = 3; 26: } 27:  28: public Person(string name, DateTime dob) : this() 29: { 30: Name = name; 31: DateOfBirth = dob; 32:  33: Alpha = ";LKJ"; 34: Gamma = 0.0898; 35: } 36:  37: public Person(int uniqueNumber, string name, int age, DateTime dob, string invoiceNumber) : this() 38: { 39: UniqueNumber = uniqueNumber; 40: Name = name; 41: Age = age; 42: DateOfBirth = dob; 43: InvoiceNumber = invoiceNumber; 44:  45: Alpha = "QWER"; 46: Beta = 5; 47: Delta = 1.0; 48: Gamma = 0.0; 49: } 50: } In the above example, every constructor over-writes the values for the readonly members. This is perfectly valid. There is a possibility that based on the way the object is instantiated, the readonly member will have a different value. Well, that’s all I have for today and read this as it’s on a related topic.

  Read the article

• How to create a simple adf dashboard application with EJB 3.0

  - by Rodrigues, Raphael

  In this month's Oracle Magazine, Frank Nimphius wrote a very good article about an Oracle ADF Faces dashboard application to support persistent user personalization. You can read this entire article clicking here. The idea in this article is to extend the dashboard application. My idea here is to create a similar dashboard application, but instead ADF BC model layer, I'm intending to use EJB3.0. There are just a one small trick here and I'll show you. I'm using the HR usual oracle schema. The steps are: 1. Create a ADF Fusion Application with EJB as a layer model 2. Generate the entities from table (I'm using Department and Employees only) 3. Create a new Session Bean. I called it: HRSessionEJB 4. Create a new method like that: public List getAllDepartmentsHavingEmployees(){ JpaEntityManager jpaEntityManager = (JpaEntityManager)em.getDelegate(); Query query = jpaEntityManager.createNamedQuery("Departments.allDepartmentsHavingEmployees"); JavaBeanResult.setQueryResultClass(query, AggregatedDepartment.class); return query.getResultList(); } 5. In the Departments entity, create a new native query annotation: @Entity @NamedQueries( { @NamedQuery(name = "Departments.findAll", query = "select o from Departments o") }) @NamedNativeQueries({ @NamedNativeQuery(name="Departments.allDepartmentsHavingEmployees", query = "select e.department_id, d.department_name , sum(e.salary), avg(e.salary) , max(e.salary), min(e.salary) from departments d , employees e where d.department_id = e.department_id group by e.department_id, d.department_name")}) public class Departments implements Serializable {...} 6. Create a new POJO called AggregatedDepartment: package oramag.sample.dashboard.model; import java.io.Serializable; import java.math.BigDecimal; public class AggregatedDepartment implements Serializable{ @SuppressWarnings("compatibility:5167698678781240729") private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L; private BigDecimal departmentId; private String departmentName; private BigDecimal sum; private BigDecimal avg; private BigDecimal max; private BigDecimal min; public AggregatedDepartment() { super(); } public AggregatedDepartment(BigDecimal departmentId, String departmentName, BigDecimal sum, BigDecimal avg, BigDecimal max, BigDecimal min) { super(); this.departmentId = departmentId; this.departmentName = departmentName; this.sum = sum; this.avg = avg; this.max = max; this.min = min; } public void setDepartmentId(BigDecimal departmentId) { this.departmentId = departmentId; } public BigDecimal getDepartmentId() { return departmentId; } public void setDepartmentName(String departmentName) { this.departmentName = departmentName; } public String getDepartmentName() { return departmentName; } public void setSum(BigDecimal sum) { this.sum = sum; } public BigDecimal getSum() { return sum; } public void setAvg(BigDecimal avg) { this.avg = avg; } public BigDecimal getAvg() { return avg; } public void setMax(BigDecimal max) { this.max = max; } public BigDecimal getMax() { return max; } public void setMin(BigDecimal min) { this.min = min; } public BigDecimal getMin() { return min; } } 7. Create the util java class called JavaBeanResult. The function of this class is to configure a native SQL query to return POJOs in a single line of code using the utility class. Credits: http://onpersistence.blogspot.com.br/2010/07/eclipselink-jpa-native-constructor.html package oramag.sample.dashboard.model.util; /******************************************************************************* * Copyright (c) 2010 Oracle. All rights reserved. * This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the * terms of the Eclipse Public License v1.0 and Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0 * which accompanies this distribution. * The Eclipse Public License is available at http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html * and the Eclipse Distribution License is available at * http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php. * * @author shsmith ******************************************************************************/ import java.lang.reflect.Constructor; import java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException; import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.List; import javax.persistence.Query; import org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.ConversionException; import org.eclipse.persistence.internal.helper.ConversionManager; import org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions.AbstractRecord; import org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions.AbstractSession; import org.eclipse.persistence.jpa.JpaHelper; import org.eclipse.persistence.queries.DatabaseQuery; import org.eclipse.persistence.queries.QueryRedirector; import org.eclipse.persistence.sessions.Record; import org.eclipse.persistence.sessions.Session; /*** * This class is a simple query redirector that intercepts the result of a * native query and builds an instance of the specified JavaBean class from each * result row. The order of the selected columns musts match the JavaBean class * constructor arguments order. * * To configure a JavaBeanResult on a native SQL query use: * JavaBeanResult.setQueryResultClass(query, SomeBeanClass.class); * where query is either a JPA SQL Query or native EclipseLink DatabaseQuery. * * @author shsmith * */ public final class JavaBeanResult implements QueryRedirector { private static final long serialVersionUID = 3025874987115503731L; protected Class resultClass; public static void setQueryResultClass(Query query, Class resultClass) { JavaBeanResult javaBeanResult = new JavaBeanResult(resultClass); DatabaseQuery databaseQuery = JpaHelper.getDatabaseQuery(query); databaseQuery.setRedirector(javaBeanResult); } public static void setQueryResultClass(DatabaseQuery query, Class resultClass) { JavaBeanResult javaBeanResult = new JavaBeanResult(resultClass); query.setRedirector(javaBeanResult); } protected JavaBeanResult(Class resultClass) { this.resultClass = resultClass; } @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") public Object invokeQuery(DatabaseQuery query, Record arguments, Session session) { List results = new ArrayList(); try { Constructor[] constructors = resultClass.getDeclaredConstructors(); Constructor javaBeanClassConstructor = null; // (Constructor) resultClass.getDeclaredConstructors()[0]; Class[] constructorParameterTypes = null; // javaBeanClassConstructor.getParameterTypes(); List rows = (List) query.execute( (AbstractSession) session, (AbstractRecord) arguments); for (Object[] columns : rows) { boolean found = false; for (Constructor constructor : constructors) { javaBeanClassConstructor = constructor; constructorParameterTypes = javaBeanClassConstructor.getParameterTypes(); if (columns.length == constructorParameterTypes.length) { found = true; break; } // if (columns.length != constructorParameterTypes.length) { // throw new ColumnParameterNumberMismatchException( // resultClass); // } } if (!found) throw new ColumnParameterNumberMismatchException( resultClass); Object[] constructorArgs = new Object[constructorParameterTypes.length]; for (int j = 0; j < columns.length; j++) { Object columnValue = columns[j]; Class parameterType = constructorParameterTypes[j]; // convert the column value to the correct type--if possible constructorArgs[j] = ConversionManager.getDefaultManager() .convertObject(columnValue, parameterType); } results.add(javaBeanClassConstructor.newInstance(constructorArgs)); } } catch (ConversionException e) { throw new ColumnParameterMismatchException(e); } catch (IllegalArgumentException e) { throw new ColumnParameterMismatchException(e); } catch (InstantiationException e) { throw new ColumnParameterMismatchException(e); } catch (IllegalAccessException e) { throw new ColumnParameterMismatchException(e); } catch (InvocationTargetException e) { throw new ColumnParameterMismatchException(e); } return results; } public final class ColumnParameterMismatchException extends RuntimeException { private static final long serialVersionUID = 4752000720859502868L; public ColumnParameterMismatchException(Throwable t) { super( "Exception while processing query results-ensure column order matches constructor parameter order", t); } } public final class ColumnParameterNumberMismatchException extends RuntimeException { private static final long serialVersionUID = 1776794744797667755L; public ColumnParameterNumberMismatchException(Class clazz) { super( "Number of selected columns does not match number of constructor arguments for: " + clazz.getName()); } } } 8. Create the DataControl and a jsf or jspx page 9. Drag allDepartmentsHavingEmployees from DataControl and drop in your page 10. Choose Graph > Type: Bar (Normal) > any layout 11. In the wizard screen, Bars label, adds: sum, avg, max, min. In the X Axis label, adds: departmentName, and click in OK button 12. Run the page, the result is showed below: You can download the workspace here . It was using the latest jdeveloper version 11.1.2.2.

  Read the article

• JavaScript Class Patterns Revisited: Endgame

  - by Liam McLennan

  I recently described some of the patterns used to simulate classes (types) in JavaScript. But I missed the best pattern of them all. I described a pattern I called constructor function with a prototype that looks like this: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); and I mentioned that the problem with this pattern is that it does not provide any encapsulation, that is, it does not allow private variables. Jan Van Ryswyck recently posted the solution, obvious in hindsight, of wrapping the constructor function in another function, thereby allowing private variables through closure. The above example becomes: var Person = (function() { // private variables go here var name,age; function constructor(n, a) { name = n; age = a; } constructor.prototype = { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age + " years old."; } }; return constructor; })(); var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Now we have prototypal inheritance and encapsulation. The important thing to understand is that the constructor, and the toString function both have access to the name and age private variables because they are in an outer scope and they become part of the closure.

  Read the article

• TypeError: Error #1007: Instantiation attempted on a non-constructor. on port to Flex 4

  - by Josh Handel

  I have been porting an app from Flex 3.4.x to 4.0.. I have successfully ported the app and its libraries to flex 4.0, I've also removed ALL the references to http://www.adobe.com/2006/flex/mx in any of my mxml files... In short I "think" I have moved everything over to the new mx framework (2009).. But I still get the following error (which never happend in 3.4 or 3.5 with this same app) when I try to run my flex app. TypeError: Error #1007: Instantiation attempted on a non-constructor. at mx.preloaders::Preloader/initialize()[E:\dev\4.0.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\preloaders\Preloader.as:253] at mx.managers::SystemManager/http://www.adobe.com/2006/flex/mx/internal::initialize()[E:\dev\4.0.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\managers\SystemManager.as:1925] at mx.managers::SystemManager/initHandler()[E:\dev\4.0.0\frameworks\projects\framework\src\mx\managers\SystemManager.as:2419] At this point I am completely stumped.. anyone have any ideas? Thanks

  Read the article

• Java: how to initialize private final int value with if-else in constructor?

  - by HH

  $ javac InitInt.java InitInt.java:7: variable right might not have been initialized InitInt(){} ^ 1 error $ cat InitInt.java import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class InitInt { private final int right; InitInt(){} public static void main(String[] args) { // I don't want to assign any value. // just initialize it, how? InitInt test = new InitInt(); System.out.println(test.getRight()); // later assiging a value } public int getRight(){return right;} } Initialization problem with Constructor, due to if-else -loop InitInt{ // Still the error, "may not be initialized" // How to initialise it, without removing if-else? if(snippetBuilder.length()>(charwisePos+25)){ right=charwisePos+25; }else{ right=snippetBuilder.length()-1; } }

  Read the article

• Overriding Page class constructor in ASP.NET code-behind file -- when is it called?

  - by CSharp Noob

  If I override the System.Web.UI.Page constructor, as shown, when does DoSomething() get called in terms of the page lifecycle? I can't seem to find this documented anywhere. namespace NameSpace1 { public partial class MyClass : System.Web.UI.Page { public MyClass() { DoSomething(); } protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { } } } For reference, here is the ASP.NET Page Lifecycle Overview: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178472.aspx Turns out the best answer was right in the MSDN article. I just had to look carefully at the diagram.

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern that allows a constructor to be called only from a specific factory and from nowh

  - by willem

  We have a class, say LegacyUserSettingsService. LegacyUserSettingsService implements an interface, IUserSettingsService. You can get an instance of the IUserSettingsService by calling our ApplicationServicesFactory. The factory uses Spring.NET to construct the concrete LegacyUserSettingsService. The trouble is that new developers sometimes do their own thing and construct new instances of the LegacyUserSettingsService directly (instead of going via the factory). Is there a way to protect the constructor of the concrete class so it can only be called from the factory? A well-known pattern perhaps? Note that the concrete class resides in a different assembly (separate from the Factory's assembly, so the internal keyword is not a solution). The factory assembly references the other assembly that contains the concrete class. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Best way to insert items from a Derived class's constructor into a Base class's private std::vector?

  - by Will

  I have these classes: class Base { ... private: std::vector<X> v; }; class Derived { Derived(X*, int n); } where the constructor of Derived is passed an array of item Xs, which I need to insert into my vector v in the Base class. (X is a smart pointer) Currently I see two ways to do this: 1) Create a function in Base: InsertItem(X*) that will insert an item into the vector. 2) Create a vector in Derived that contains the full list, then get it into Base by moving the entire vector. I dont see any advantages to #2, but was wondering if #1 was a good solution, or if there are better ways to do this. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to define a static array without a contant size in a constructor of a class? (C++)

  - by Keand64

  I have a class defined as: class Obj { public: int width, height; Obj(int w, int h); } and I need it to contain a static array like so: int presc[width][height]; however, I cannot define within the class, so it it possible to create a pointer to a 2D array (and, out of curiosity, 3, 4, and 5D arrays), have that as a member of the class, and intitalize it in the constructor like: int ar[5][6]; Obj o(5, 6, &ar); If that isn't possible, is there any way to get a static array without a contant size in a class, or am I going to have to use a dynamic array? (Something I don't want to do because I don't plan on ever changing the size of the array after it's created.)

  Read the article

• Why does jQuery do this in its constructor function implementation?

  - by mattcodes

  If we look at the latest jQuery source at http://code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.js we see the following: var jQuery = function( selector, context ) { // The jQuery object is actually just the init constructor 'enhanced' return new jQuery.fn.init( selector, context ); } My understanding of the new keyword in Javascript is essentially JavaScript passes the function an empty object {} and the function sets stuff on it via this.blah. Also from my understanding new differs from .call/.apply etc.. in that the return object also has the prototype set to that of the function. So the return value should have a prototype that the same as jQuery.prototype.init.prototype (or jQuery.fn.init.prototype). However from what I see its prototype is set to jQuery.prototype thus all the commands available to work on the set. Why is this? What am I missing in my understanding?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC View Not posting back to Post method and expecting a parameterless Constructor?

  - by VJ

  Hi, I am trying to post back some data using a viewmodel i have created and it works for me for one of the projects.But I am doin this right now public ActionResult Foo(string userkey) { vm.Value="Xvalue"; return View(vm); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult Foo( MyViewModel vm) { // process input if (inputOK) string value=vm.Value return RedirectToAction("Index"); return View(); } public class MyViewModel { public string Value { get; set; } public SomeClass newobj {get;set;} } public class SomeClass { public int id{get;set;} public string str{get;set;} } So it on debugging never goes into the parameter method for Post although on the view i have added a form and a button that submits and the page inherits from the viewmodel.I get an error saying it expects a parameterless constructor how do I fix this ? . I wrote an post method with no parameters and it does go into that method

  Read the article

• C#, Can I move dictionary initial code out from the constructor?

  - by 5YrsLaterDBA

  Here is my code right now. But I would like to move those "Add" out from the constructor. Can we initialize Dictionary when we new it? or you have another better idea. Basically I want to define few characters which are used in many places. public class User { public enum actionEnum { In, Out, Fail } public static Dictionary<actionEnum, String> loginAction = new Dictionary<actionEnum, string>(); public User() { loginAction.Add(actionEnum.In, "I"); loginAction.Add(actionEnum.Out, "O"); loginAction.Add(actionEnum.Fail, "F"); } ..... }

  Read the article

• will destroyed() be emitted if the constructor of a class derived from QObject throws?

  - by PorkyBrain

  Ive seen Qt GUI syntax like the following all over the place: myDialog::myDialog(QWidget *parent, Qt::WFlags flags):QDialog(parent, flags) { QPushButton *button = new QPushButton("&Download", this); QVBoxLayout *layout = new QVBoxLayout(this); //something that can throw here layout ->addWidget(button ); setLayout(layout); } I've always wondered if this can leak in the event of an exception because the "this" I'm giving as a parent to button and layout is not fully constructed so it might not destroy its children. I tried it out in MSVC2010 Qt4.8.3 and it looks like as soon as the base QObject class is fully created (which is done first of course) it is ok to pass "this" to other objects in the constructor, they will destroyed correctly. I haven't found the spot in the Qt docs guaranteeing this though, can someone point me to it so I have assurance that this will not change in the future?

  Read the article

• why can not create instance from any class out side of constructor?

  - by Phsika

  why i generate instance outside of class. i give inheritance snifC to sinifD i need to create instance sinifC sinifc= new sinifC() in SinifD out side of constructor? public class sinifC { public void method3() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme3"); } } public class sinifD : sinifC { void method4() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme4"); } public sinifD() { sinifC sinifc = new sinifC(); sinifc.method3(); } } i want to make it below: public class sinifC { public void method3() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme3"); } } public class sinifD : sinifC { void method4() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme4"); } sinifC sinifc = new sinifC(); sinifc.method3(); } Error: Invalid token '(' in class, struct, or interface member declaration

  Read the article

• Spring security ldap authentication with different ldap for authorities

  - by wuntee

  I am trying to set up an ldap authentication context where the authorities is a separate ldap instance (with the same principal name). I am having trouble setting up the authentication part, the logs dont show any search results for the following context. Can anyone see what I am doing wrong? <beans:bean id="ldapAuthProvider" class="org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.LdapAuthenticationProvider"> <beans:constructor-arg> <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.BindAuthenticator"> <beans:constructor-arg ref="adContextSource" /> <beans:property name="userSearch"> <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.ldap.search.FilterBasedLdapUserSearch"> <beans:constructor-arg index="0" value=""/> <beans:constructor-arg index="1" value="(samaccountname={0})"/> <beans:constructor-arg index="2" ref="adContextSource" /> <beans:property name="searchSubtree" value="true" /> <beans:property name="returningAttributes"> <beans:list> <beans:value>DN</beans:value> </beans:list> </beans:property> </beans:bean> </beans:property> </beans:bean> </beans:constructor-arg> <beans:constructor-arg> <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.ldap.userdetails.DefaultLdapAuthoritiesPopulator"> <beans:constructor-arg ref="cadaContextSource" /> <beans:constructor-arg value="ou=groups" /> <beans:property name="groupRoleAttribute" value="cn" /> </beans:bean> </beans:constructor-arg> </beans:bean> The logs simply show this when trying to authenticate: [DEBUG,UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter] Request is to process authentication [DEBUG,ProviderManager] Authentication attempt using org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.LdapAuthenticationProvider [DEBUG,LdapAuthenticationProvider] Processing authentication request for user: wuntee [DEBUG,FilterBasedLdapUserSearch] Searching for user 'wuntee', with user search [ searchFilter: '(samaccountname={0})', searchBase: '', scope: subtree, searchTimeLimit: 0, derefLinkFlag: false ] [DEBUG,AbstractContextSource] Got Ldap context on server 'ldap://adapps.cable.comcast.com:3268/dc=comcast,dc=com/dc=comcast,dc=com' [DEBUG,XmlWebApplicationContext] Publishing event in Root WebApplicationContext: org.springframework.security.authentication.event.AuthenticationFailureServiceExceptionEvent[source=org.springframework.security.authentication.UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken@b777617d: Principal: wuntee; Password: [PROTECTED]; Authenticated: false; Details: org.springframework.security.web.authentication.WebAuthenticationDetails@12afc: RemoteIpAddress: 127.0.0.1; SessionId: 191F70ED4E8351F8638868C34C6A076A; Not granted any authorities] [DEBUG,DefaultListableBeanFactory] Returning cached instance of singleton bean 'org.springframework.security.core.session.SessionRegistryImpl#0' [DEBUG,UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter] Authentication request failed: org.springframework.security.authentication.AuthenticationServiceException: Failed to parse DN; nested exception is org.springframework.ldap.core.TokenMgrError: Lexical error at line 1, column 21. Encountered: "=" (61), after : "" [DEBUG,UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter] Updated SecurityContextHolder to contain null Authentication [DEBUG,UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter] Delegating to authentication failure handlerorg.springframework.security.web.authentication.SimpleUrlAuthenticationFailureHandler@28651c

  Read the article

• How should an object that uses composition set its composed components?

  - by Casey

  After struggling with various problems and reading up on component-based systems and reading Bob Nystrom's excellent book "Game Programming Patterns" and in particular the chapter on Components I determined that this is a horrible idea: //Class intended to be inherited by all objects. Engine uses Objects exclusively. class Object : public IUpdatable, public IDrawable { public: Object(); Object(const Object& other); Object& operator=(const Object& rhs); virtual ~Object() =0; virtual void SetBody(const RigidBodyDef& body); virtual const RigidBody* GetBody() const; virtual RigidBody* GetBody(); //Inherited from IUpdatable virtual void Update(double deltaTime); //Inherited from IDrawable virtual void Draw(BITMAP* dest); protected: private: }; I'm attempting to refactor it into a more manageable system. Mr. Nystrom uses the constructor to set the individual components; CHANGING these components at run-time is impossible. It's intended to be derived and be used in derivative classes or factory methods where their constructors do not change at run-time. i.e. his Bjorne object is just a call to a factory method with a specific call to the GameObject constructor. Is this a good idea? Should the object have a default constructor and setters to facilitate run-time changes or no default constructor without setters and instead use a factory method? Given: class Object { public: //...See below for constructor implementation concerns. Object(const Object& other); Object& operator=(const Object& rhs); virtual ~Object() =0; //See below for Setter concerns IUpdatable* GetUpdater(); IDrawable* GetRenderer(); protected: IUpdatable* _updater; IDrawable* _renderer; private: }; Should the components be read-only and passed in to the constructor via: class Object { public: //No default constructor. Object(IUpdatable* updater, IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... }; or Should a default constructor be provided and then the components can be set at run-time? class Object { public: Object(); //... SetUpdater(IUpdater* updater); SetRenderer(IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... }; or both? class Object { public: Object(); Object(IUpdater* updater, IDrawable* renderer); //... SetUpdater(IUpdater* updater); SetRenderer(IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... };

  Read the article

• Why do we (really) program to interfaces?

  - by Kyle Burns

  One of the earliest lessons I was taught in Enterprise development was "always program against an interface".  This was back in the VB6 days and I quickly learned that no code would be allowed to move to the QA server unless my business objects and data access objects each are defined as an interface and have a matching implementation class.  Why?  "It's more reusable" was one answer.  "It doesn't tie you to a specific implementation" a slightly more knowing answer.  And let's not forget the discussion ending "it's a standard".  The problem with these responses was that senior people didn't really understand the reason we were doing the things we were doing and because of that, we were entirely unable to realize the intent behind the practice - we simply used interfaces and had a bunch of extra code to maintain to show for it. It wasn't until a few years later that I finally heard the term "Inversion of Control".  Simply put, "Inversion of Control" takes the creation of objects that used to be within the control (and therefore a responsibility of) of your component and moves it to some outside force.  For example, consider the following code which follows the old "always program against an interface" rule in the manner of many corporate development shops: 1: ICatalog catalog = new Catalog(); 2: Category[] categories = catalog.GetCategories(); In this example, I met the requirement of the rule by declaring the variable as ICatalog, but I didn't hit "it doesn't tie you to a specific implementation" because I explicitly created an instance of the concrete Catalog object.  If I want to test the functionality of the code I just wrote I have to have an environment in which Catalog can be created along with any of the resources upon which it depends (e.g. configuration files, database connections, etc) in order to test my functionality.  That's a lot of setup work and one of the things that I think ultimately discourages real buy-in of unit testing in many development shops. So how do I test my code without needing Catalog to work?  A very primitive approach I've seen is to change the line the instantiates catalog to read: 1: ICatalog catalog = new FakeCatalog();   once the test is run and passes, the code is switched back to the real thing.  This obviously poses a huge risk for introducing test code into production and in my opinion is worse than just keeping the dependency and its associated setup work.  Another popular approach is to make use of Factory methods which use an object whose "job" is to know how to obtain a valid instance of the object.  Using this approach, the code may look something like this: 1: ICatalog catalog = CatalogFactory.GetCatalog();   The code inside the factory is responsible for deciding "what kind" of catalog is needed.  This is a far better approach than the previous one, but it does make projects grow considerably because now in addition to the interface, the real implementation, and the fake implementation(s) for testing you have added a minimum of one factory (or at least a factory method) for each of your interfaces.  Once again, developers say "that's too complicated and has me writing a bunch of useless code" and quietly slip back into just creating a new Catalog and chalking any test failures up to "it will probably work on the server". This is where software intended specifically to facilitate Inversion of Control comes into play.  There are many libraries that take on the Inversion of Control responsibilities in .Net and most of them have many pros and cons.  From this point forward I'll discuss concepts from the standpoint of the Unity framework produced by Microsoft's Patterns and Practices team.  I'm primarily focusing on this library because it questions about it inspired this posting. At Unity's core and that of most any IoC framework is a catalog or registry of components.  This registry can be configured either through code or using the application's configuration file and in the most simple terms says "interface X maps to concrete implementation Y".  It can get much more complicated, but I want to keep things at the "what does it do" level instead of "how does it do it".  The object that exposes most of the Unity functionality is the UnityContainer.  This object exposes methods to configure the catalog as well as the Resolve<T> method which is used to obtain an instance of the type represented by T.  When using the Resolve<T> method, Unity does not necessarily have to just "new up" the requested object, but also can track dependencies of that object and ensure that the entire dependency chain is satisfied. There are three basic ways that I have seen Unity used within projects.  Those are through classes directly using the Unity container, classes requiring injection of dependencies, and classes making use of the Service Locator pattern. The first usage of Unity is when classes are aware of the Unity container and directly call its Resolve method whenever they need the services advertised by an interface.  The up side of this approach is that IoC is utilized, but the down side is that every class has to be aware that Unity is being used and tied directly to that implementation. Many developers don't like the idea of as close a tie to specific IoC implementation as is represented by using Unity within all of your classes and for the most part I agree that this isn't a good idea.  As an alternative, classes can be designed for Dependency Injection.  Dependency Injection is where a force outside the class itself manipulates the object to provide implementations of the interfaces that the class needs to interact with the outside world.  This is typically done either through constructor injection where the object has a constructor that accepts an instance of each interface it requires or through property setters accepting the service providers.  When using dependency, I lean toward the use of constructor injection because I view the constructor as being a much better way to "discover" what is required for the instance to be ready for use.  During resolution, Unity looks for an injection constructor and will attempt to resolve instances of each interface required by the constructor, throwing an exception of unable to meet the advertised needs of the class.  The up side of this approach is that the needs of the class are very clearly advertised and the class is unaware of which IoC container (if any) is being used.  The down side of this approach is that you're required to maintain the objects passed to the constructor as instance variables throughout the life of your object and that objects which coordinate with many external services require a lot of additional constructor arguments (this gets ugly and may indicate a need for refactoring). The final way that I've seen and used Unity is to make use of the ServiceLocator pattern, of which the Patterns and Practices team has also provided a Unity-compatible implementation.  When using the ServiceLocator, your class calls ServiceLocator.Retrieve in places where it would have called Resolve on the Unity container.  Like using Unity directly, it does tie you directly to the ServiceLocator implementation and makes your code aware that dependency injection is taking place, but it does have the up side of giving you the freedom to swap out the underlying IoC container if necessary.  I'm not hugely concerned with hiding IoC entirely from the class (I view this as a "nice to have"), so the single biggest problem that I see with the ServiceLocator approach is that it provides no way to proactively advertise needs in the way that constructor injection does, allowing more opportunity for difficult to track runtime errors. This blog entry has not been intended in any way to be a definitive work on IoC, but rather as something to spur thought about why we program to interfaces and some ways to reach the intended value of the practice instead of having it just complicate your code.  I hope that it helps somebody begin or continue a journey away from being a "Cargo Cult Programmer".

  Read the article

• Java EE 7 Survey Results!

  - by reza_rahman

  On November 8th, the Java EE EG posted a survey to gather broad community feedback on a number of critical open issues. For reference, you can find the original survey here. We kept the survey open for about three weeks until November 30th. To our delight, over 1100 developers took time out of their busy lives to let their voices be heard! The results of the survey were sent to the EG on December 12th. The subsequent EG discussion is available here. The exact summary sent to the EG is available here. We would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every one the individuals who took the survey. It is very appreciated, encouraging and worth it's weight in gold. In particular, I tried to capture just some of the high-quality, intelligent, thoughtful and professional comments in the summary to the EG. I highly encourage you to continue to stay involved, perhaps through the Adopt-a-JSR program. We would also like to sincerely thank java.net, JavaLobby, TSS and InfoQ for helping spread the word about the survey. Below is a brief summary of the results... APIs to Add to Java EE 7 Full/Web Profile The first question asked which of the four new candidate APIs (WebSocket, JSON-P, JBatch and JCache) should be added to the Java EE 7 Full and Web profile respectively. As the following graph shows, there was significant support for adding all the new APIs to the full profile: Support is relatively the weakest for Batch 1.0, but still good. A lot of folks saw WebSocket 1.0 as a critical technology with comments such as this one: "A modern web application needs Web Sockets as first class citizens" While it is clearly seen as being important, a number of commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a higher-level JSON data binding API as illustrated by this comment: "How come we don't have a Data Binding API for JSON" JCache was also seen as being very important as expressed with comments like: "JCache should really be that foundational technology on which other specs have no fear to depend on" The results for the Web Profile is not surprising. While there is strong support for adding WebSocket 1.0 and JSON-P 1.0 to the Web Profile, support for adding JCache 1.0 and Batch 1.0 is relatively weak. There was actually significant opposition to adding Batch 1. 0 (with 51.8% casting a 'No' vote). Enabling CDI by Default The second question asked was whether CDI should be enabled in Java EE environments by default. A significant majority of 73.3% developers supported enabling CDI, only 13.8% opposed. Comments such as these two reflect a strong general support for CDI as well as a desire for better Java EE alignment with CDI: "CDI makes Java EE quite valuable!" "Would prefer to unify EJB, CDI and JSF lifecycles" There is, however, a palpable concern around the performance impact of enabling CDI by default as exemplified by this comment: "Java EE projects in most cases use CDI, hence it is sensible to enable CDI by default when creating a Java EE application. However, there are several issues if CDI is enabled by default: scanning can be slow - not all libs use CDI (hence, scanning is not needed)" Another significant concern appears to be around backwards compatibility and conflict with other JSR 330 implementations like Spring: "I am leaning towards yes, however can easily imagine situations where errors would be caused by automatically activating CDI, especially in cases of backward compatibility where another DI engine (such as Spring and the like) happens to use the same mechanics to inject dependencies and in that case there would be an overlap in injections and probably an uncertain outcome" Some commenters such as this one attempt to suggest solutions to these potential issues: "If you have Spring in use and use javax.inject.Inject then you might get some unexpected behavior that could be equally confusing. I guess there will be a way to switch CDI off. I'm tempted to say yes but am cautious for this reason" Consistent Usage of @Inject The third question was around using CDI/JSR 330 @Inject consistently vs. allowing JSRs to create their own injection annotations. A slight majority of 53.3% developers supported using @Inject consistently across JSRs. 28.8% said using custom injection annotations is OK, while 18.0% were not sure. The vast majority of commenters were strongly supportive of CDI and general Java EE alignment with CDI as illistrated by these comments: "Dependency Injection should be standard from now on in EE. It should use CDI as that is the DI mechanism in EE and is quite powerful. Having a new JSR specific DI mechanism to deal with just means more reflection, more proxies. JSRs should also be constructed to allow some of their objects Injectable. @Inject @TransactionalCache or @Inject @JMXBean etc...they should define the annotations and stereotypes to make their code less procedural. Dog food it. If there is a shortcoming in CDI for a JSR fix it and we will all be grateful" "We're trying to make this a comprehensive platform, right? Injection should be a fundamental part of the platform; everything else should build on the same common infrastructure. Each-having-their-own is just a recipe for chaos and having to learn the same thing 10 different ways" Expanding the Use of @Stereotype The fourth question was about expanding CDI @Stereotype to cover annotations across Java EE beyond just CDI. A significant majority of 62.3% developers supported expanding the use of @Stereotype, only 13.3% opposed. A majority of commenters supported the idea as well as the theme of general CDI/Java EE alignment as expressed in these examples: "Just like defining new types for (compositions of) existing classes, stereotypes can help make software development easier" "This is especially important if many EJB services are decoupled from the EJB component model and can be applied via individual annotations to Java EE components. @Stateless is a nicely compact annotation. Code will not improve if that will have to be applied in the future as @Transactional, @Pooled, @Secured, @Singlethreaded, @...." Some, however, expressed concerns around increased complexity such as this commenter: "Could be very convenient, but I'm afraid if it wouldn't make some important class annotations less visible" Expanding Interceptor Use The final set of questions was about expanding interceptors further across Java EE... A very solid 96.3% of developers wanted to expand interceptor use to all Java EE components. 35.7% even wanted to expand interceptors to other Java EE managed classes. Most developers (54.9%) were not sure if there is any place that injection is supported that should not support interceptors. 32.8% thought any place that supports injection should also support interceptors. Only 12.2% were certain that there are places where injection should be supported but not interceptors. The comments reflected the diversity of opinions, generally supportive of interceptors: "I think interceptors are as fundamental as injection and should be available anywhere in the platform" "The whole usage of interceptors still needs to take hold in Java programming, but it is a powerful technology that needs some time in the Sun. Basically it should become part of Java SE, maybe the next step after lambas?" A distinct chain of thought separated interceptors from filters and listeners: "I think that the Servlet API already provides a rich set of possibilities to hook yourself into different Servlet container events. I don't find a need to 'pollute' the Servlet model with the Interceptors API"

  Read the article

• operator new for array of class without default constructor......

  - by skydoor

  For a class without default constructor, operator new and placement new can be used to declare an array of such class. When I read the code in More Effective C++, I found the code as below(I modified some part)..... My question is, why [] after the operator new is needed? I test it without it, it still works. Can any body explain that? class A { public: int i; A(int i):i(i) {} }; int main() { void *rawMemory = operator new[] (10 * sizeof(A)); // Why [] needed here? A *p = static_cast<A*>(rawMemory); for(int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++ ) { new(&p[i])A(i); } for(int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++ ) { cout<<p[i].i<<endl; } for(int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++ ) { p[i].~A(); } return 0; }

  Read the article

• Should I map a domain object to a view model using an optional constructor?

  - by Byron Sommardahl

  I'd like to be able to map a domain model to a view model by newing up a view model and passing in the contributing domain model as a parameter (like the code below). My motivation is to keep from re-using mapping code AND to provide a simple way to map (not using automapper yet). A friend says the view model should not know anything about the "payment" domain model that's being passed into the optional constructor. What do you think? public class LineItemsViewModel { public LineItemsViewModel() { } public LineItemsViewModel(IPayment payment) { LineItemColumnHeaders = payment.MerchantContext.Profile.UiPreferences.LineItemColumnHeaders; LineItems = LineItemDomainToViewModelMapper.MapToViewModel(payment.LineItems); ConvenienceFeeAmount = payment.ConvenienceFee.Fee; SubTotal = payment.PaymentAmount; Total = payment.PaymentAmount + payment.ConvenienceFee.Fee; } public IEnumerable<Dictionary<int, string>> LineItems { get; set; } public Dictionary<int, string> LineItemColumnHeaders { get; set; } public decimal SubTotal { get; set; } public decimal ConvenienceFeeAmount { get; set; } public decimal Total { get; set; } }

  Read the article

• Why is there a constructor method if you can assign the values to variables?

  - by Joel

  I'm just learning PHP, and I'm confused about what the purpose of the __construct() method? If I can do this: class Bear { // define properties public $name = 'Bill'; public $weight = 200; // define methods public function eat($units) { echo $this->name." is eating ".$units." units of food... <br />"; $this->weight += $units; } } Then why do it with a constructor instead? : class Bear { // define properties public $name; public $weight; public function __construct(){ $this->name = 'Bill'; $this->weight = 200; } // define methods public function eat($units) { echo $this->name." is eating ".$units." units of food... <br />"; $this->weight += $units; } }

  Read the article

• Why compiling in Flash IDE I cannot access stage in a Sprite constructor before addChild while if I

  - by yuri

  I've created this simple class (omissing package directive and imports) public class Viewer extends Sprite { public function Viewer():void { trace(stage); } } then in Flash IDE I import in first frame this AS: import Viewer var viewer = new Viewer(); stage.addChild(viewer); trace(viewer.stage); and this works as I expected: the first trace called in constructor say stage is "null" because I haven't yet add viewer to a DisplayObjectContainer. The second one output the stage object. So I created a project using AXDT eclipse plugin, I've recreated and compiled only the first class (trashed the AS init script used in Flash IDE because is not needed) and on the first trace ... wow ... the stage is filled with the stage Object. I seems to me that the compiler used by AXDT (Flex4 SDK open source) add the class... before construct it (!?).. to a DisplayObjectContainer already attached to a Stage. I want to understand how can reproduce this behaviour using compiler in Flash IDE so I can directrly access Stage in construction.

  Read the article

• Can't access resource from Generic.xaml within the Custom Control constructor.

  - by myermian

  I'm not sure why this is doing this, but I can't access the resource from within my constructor. XTabItem.cs using System; using System.ComponentModel; using System.Windows; using System.Windows.Controls; using System.Windows.Media; namespace MyStuff { public class XTabItem : TabItem { public static readonly DependencyProperty XTabItemNormalBackgroundProperty; /// <summary> /// Visual Property: Normal Background /// </summary> [Description("Determines the visibility of the close button."), Category("XTabItem Visual")] public Brush XTabItemNormalBackground { get { return (Brush)GetValue(XTabItemNormalBackgroundProperty); } set { SetValue(XTabItemNormalBackgroundProperty, value); } } static XTabItem() { DefaultStyleKeyProperty.OverrideMetadata(typeof(XTabItem), new FrameworkPropertyMetadata(typeof(XTabItem))); XTabItemNormalBackgroundProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("XTabItemNormalBackground", typeof(Brush), typeof(XTabItem), new UIPropertyMetadata(null)); } public XTabItem() { //XTabItemNormalBackground = (Brush)this.TryFindResource("XTabItemNormalBackgroundBrush"); //THIS DOES NOT WORK?? } public override void OnApplyTemplate() { base.OnApplyTemplate(); } } } Generic.xaml <ResourceDictionary xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:local="clr-namespace:MyStuff" xmlns:con="clr-namespace:MyStuff.Converters" > <SolidColorBrush x:Key="XTabItemNormalBackgroundBrush" Color="BlueViolet" /> <Style TargetType="{x:Type local:XTabItem}"> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type local:XTabItem}"> <!-- CONTENT TEMPLATE --> <Grid SnapsToDevicePixels="True"> <Border x:Name="_Border" Background="{Binding Path=XTabItemNormalBackground, RelativeSource={RelativeSource Mode=TemplatedParent}}" BorderBrush="{TemplateBinding BorderBrush}" BorderThickness="1,1,1,0"> ... </Border> </Grid> </Style> </ResourceDictionary>

  Read the article

• How can I set the name of the class xml by constructor?

  - by spderosso

  Hi, I want to be able to do something like this: @Root(name="events") class XMLEvents { @ElementList(inline=true) ArrayList<XMLEvent> events = Lists.newArrayList(); XMLEvents(){ ... events.add(new XMLEvent(time, type, professorP)); events.add(new XMLEvent(time, type, student)); events.add(new XMLEvent(time, type, course)); ... } } The XMLEvent class to go something like: class XMLEvent { @Root(name="professor") XMLEvent(DateTime time, LogType type, Professor p){ ... } @Root(name="student") XMLEvent(DateTime time, LogType type, Student st){ ... } @Root(name="course") XMLEvent(DateTime time, LogType type, Course c){ ... } } For the output to be: <events> <professor> ... </professor> <student> ... </student> <course> ... </course> </events> So depending on the constructor I call to create a new XMLEvent the root name to which is mapped is different. Is this even possible? Of course the past example was just to transmit what I need. Putting the @Root annotation there didn't change anything Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >